FYI, expecting notice of you status and/or qualification for distribution within a one year period, is likely optimistic on my part, but I don't see anything preventing that or delaying it at this time.
As you know, or should know, the litigation took a huge turn and refocused it's guns on Macquarie and the offering. Macquarie and one of it's divisions have settled and that is the money they have to distribute.
The 2 lowly board members to be frank, had zip to do with the offering, except that they both received a couple thousand shares of stock in Puda as a bonus when they came on board and opened up the US office in Florida. (necessary only to qualify for the Russell Indexes)
These negotiations IMO are most likely a demand to be excluded from the suit due to the change in the target of the suit. The only thing the court can do is clawback the shares they were given and subsequently sold.
If they do come to a agreement, the dollar amount will not affect the per share distributions to qualified investors more than a few cents..
Also keep in mind that distributions require that all the money be in the bank and all the litigation settled.
Right now, they anticipate that to occur.
So that is why I think a one year time period is in the ballpark,
"I called last week and was told that the status of my claim is "under review", and that's all they can tell me."
That is correct.
BTW Talcino, The unsettled matters are in regard to the 2 board members and a insurance company...The court dunned them several thousand dollars personally, and lawyers are still pursuing the insurance company for Puda and for the officers.
This would be the main topic discussed at the hearing...in addition to some other minor issues.
The two individual board members are broke, due to legal costs, and the insurance company has refused to pay anything for anything....period.
The insurance company is located in mainland china and is unreachable by US law...so it follows that the settlement hearing probably has little or no bearing on the settlement amount. So I would not be holding my breath.
Any settlement hearings at this stage of the game would not affect the current ongoing distribution.
Usually, I they collect additional monies at some point, they will schedule a second distribution.
To be included on this distribution, the cash would need to be in the bank before the first check goes out.
As to he hearing, the court may or may not make available a transcript in about 6 months. (depending)
You have to pay for it.....They generally charge in the area of 150 dollars.
Macquarie Capital Fair Fund / Puda Coal Securities Litigation
PO Box 2838
Portland, OR 97208-2838
No, they do not have that information, that is what you tell them when you make your claim. The only thing they might know is that you owned the stock at some point during the class period. This information comes from the registrar of Puda.
The purpose of the claim form is to determine if you have a claim and you file it with the firm chosen for the distribution. They will either accept of reject it, depending on it's validity so you send them the proof with your claim. then you wait...
You should receive a packet directly from the claims processors...I have not yet received mine either..
If you don't get them within a couple more weeks, you can download them from the website.
It seem that is some circles, #$%$ is a four letter word......lol
Donald, I figured if anyone would had a chance of recovery, it might be you, my friend.
I don't have a chance, but I figured you might.
"For example, on January 3, 2011 (which falls exactly within the period from December 8, 2012 through April 30, 2012, also within the narrower period from December 8, 2012 through April 7, 2011) I purchased 3,000 shares of PUDA common stock at the price of $15.01 per share through TD Ameritrade and I am still holding these shares. My question: do these shares satisfy the definition of the “Damaged Shared” for the Fair Fund? "
Your particular date and price paid matches up exactly with the price paid by one of the original lead plaintiffs.
Since I have followed this case from the first day, I can tell you that there was a battle going on between this original lead plaintiff, and the big direct investors who were further down in the pecking order at the time.
The argument was......."How can we know that those shares came from the secondary offering?...and the judgment, for a while at least ,was that yes, they could be but we can't be sure..."
A year or so later, the case was about to fall apart and the first attempt to mitigate with Zhao had failed. There was a bit of a coup that occurred and the lead plaintiff was replaced by the current one who is a direct investor that owns a fund. After that, the case was able to move forward only on the secondary offering managed by Macquarie.
Essentially they have clawed back all the fees earned by the subcontracting banks involved in the offering, and some hefty fines to a division of Macquarie that wrote the prospectus for the secondary.
So all the money is directly related to the secondary and in this case is only being distributed to those who bought the secondary initially.
But let's not forget the original plaintiff as they were still part of the case yet had purchased shares that could not be directly connected, but might be...Your shares would be in the same timeframe and could be deemed to be damaged. ....Maybe
All the requests for useless info has purpose..so just give it to them.
I concur with Rob, Talcino.
While I have no doubt that we have been pretty much eliminated from this suit, (I explained why and how, in a earlier post) I see no reason not to file the claims and let them reject them, or toss them aside for toilet paper.
I had hoped the SEC fair fund would not be taken over by the Class Action plaintiffs in terms of the limited scope of the final judgment, but it was.
It is as if to say that Puda Coal Inc defrauded only the direct purchasers of the secondary offering and no others were harmed, but in effect, that's exactly what they did...
So get your pencil warmed up and fire up the printer. Fill them out, send them in and forget about it until they get back to you with a polite (sorry bout that) letter or a check....but expect nothing.
Well......I just checked my stock of alcohol, and I found it to be insufficient, so I am on my way to the liquor store....some 25 miles away...(dry county)
Can I pick anything up for ya'all? :-)
One thing that I use to determine that all the mom and pop investors in this debacle will be totally screwed is that when the initial lead plaintiffs became obsolete, the average investor no longer was represented in any way in the class action.
Subsequently, the SEC case was rewritten and based on the new class action.
The total take for the secondary was around 125 million dollars with about 25million in fees so Puda received about 100 million. Many of the direct investors bailed early, so they will receive partial settlements or no settlement, and those that held their stock and rode it all the way to the bottom (coincidently the status of the lead plaintiffs and their close associates) will share most if not all of the money...IMO..
Rob....That language is the result of some fortune telling by those who have estimated the potential approved claims, and some stipulations by defendants
The $12.04. is the market price at the secondary offering date... The reason they are writing all this #$%$ is because those same investors who qualify for the fair fund will be hitting the class action for the amount they did not collect from the fair fund. IMO, they will be made nearly whole, it appears..
In addition, there are three classes....10B-11-and 12...
11 and 12 refer directly to the direct investors who bought into the secondary..
10B is the class for general investors who's stock purchases ay or may not be tied directly to the offering.
How much you might be awarded seems to be entirely dependent on your proof of purchase and when you might have sold...
There is not a lot of money in the class action fund after legal ad whatever exp, so they do not seem to be making a promise about the amount you might receive, only the amount of loss you can claim..
That's my 1st read....I may come up with some other things on a second read, but it seem clear to me that the Class action and the fair fund are genetically related in that they cater to the same plaintiffs. The direct accredited investor class. and not the mom and pop losers....If there is someway to approve a later purchase and tie it to the offering, there will be little money left to distribute, in my humble opinion. but I plan to submit it anyway.....as we have discussed.
Here is the language in the fair fund claims form that tells you what stock is likely to be the secondary offering stock.
"PURCHASES OF PUDA COMMON STOCK IN THE SECONDARY OFFERING:
List the shares of Puda common stock purchased in the Secondary Offering on or about December 8, 2010. Be sure
to attach documentation."
Har!.......I figured if you have to stuff two claims into one envelope, the PO would require 2 stamps and my net loss would be increased by the extra postage.....so I made a erroneous assumption....LOL
After losing some 35K, I am now worried about a freaking stamp......:-)
Yeah, I plan to....it's just a couple stamps.....
I was not aware that the website was functional....I checked it last week and usually check filings on Tuesday nights...appreciate the heads up..
It does not surprise me....Just follow the money...lol
Since 2007 I have received over a dozen of these class action claim packets...starting with Thornburg Mortgage, and I have yet to qualify for a dimes worth of recovery. But initially it looked like a slam dunk....Har, har...
I think there is at least one of our board members who will get a nice check, and he thought he had lost everything from the beginning of this....so I will root for him!
But for me, as I said, I never expected anything, and when the 1st class action failed and they reconstructed it around the secondary offering only, this gave the SEC a free ticket to extort some more banks and look like they prosecuted a evil doer.
The fact is, everyone including them (Macquarie) were caught with their pants down when Zhao did what he did. Chinese filings at the time were not relevant and no case using them had been successfully prosecuted. So like all the others, Macquarie ignored it, and Zhao likely used the same excuse whereby the would say the filings are inaccurate, and not timely (very late).
So....it's all about the initial investors who bought into the secondary.. I believe the discounted price was somewhere just north of 10 dollars per share. Or perhaps 10. A number of accredited investors bought lots of 10K -100K shares...I doubt there are more than 50 or so of them at most, and they also would have hedged the buy with options in many cases,
So I think this is where they are going with it..
Thanks for the heads up about the claim forms Rob. I have not received mine and have not seen them, but your question is directly related to my concern about them culling out anyone who did not do a direct purchase on the offering.
I suspected that this would be the game they would play to get the 12.00 payout.
The reason is that this was litigated in the 1st attempt/hearings that failed to get a positive ruling for the initial class plaintiffs, and they were subsequently dismissed..
If I recall the case was made that the although the plaintiff had purchased early in the class period, there was no way to prove all her shares came from the offering because she made trades with a general broker.
That class was thrown out, and a new class with lead plaintiffs who were accredited investors and had bought into the offering directly from the book runners, (direct purchase).
I think they intend to cull out anyone that purchased shares during the class period, but cannot prove the shares were offering shares. In any case they will try to do this.
If you want clarification on this, I would suggest calling the number they have provided or should have provided on the forms because that's what I would do.
I am convinced that what they mean by the secondary offering section, is those investors (accredited), just as the lead plaintiffs were, who purchased stock directly from the offering managers and not from their account broker or firm like scottrade, TDA....etc.. If you added those shared up, they would amount to about 12 million.
But to be sure, I would not just assume it, I would call to verify.
I do not know if TDA or Scott obtained offering shares to sell to you or me...and we would not know this even if true. It was this legal morass that caused the 1st class action to fail because they needed to switch from all general shares to the more specific secondary offering shares. So the direct purchasers took over the case and totally remade it to cater to their loss.